Evaluating the feasibility and potential impacts of a recovery-oriented psychosocial rehabilitation toolkit in a health care setting in Kenya: A mixed-methods study.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This pilot study evaluated the feasibility and potential impacts of delivering the Psychosocial Rehabilitation (PSR) Toolkit for people with serious mental illness within a health care setting in Kenya. METHOD: This study used a convergent mixed-methods design. Participants were people with serious mental illness (n = 23), each with an accompanying family member, who were outpatients of a hospital or satellite clinic in semirural Kenya. The intervention consisted of 14 weekly group sessions of PSR cofacilitated by health care professionals and peers with mental illness. Quantitative data were collected from patients and family members using validated outcome measures before and after the intervention. Qualitative data were collected from focus groups with patients and family members, and individual interviews with facilitators, after the intervention. RESULTS: Quantitative findings indicated that patients experienced moderate improvement in illness management and, in contrast to qualitative findings, family members experienced moderate worsening in attitudes toward recovery. Qualitative findings revealed positive outcomes for both patients and family members, as reflected in greater feelings of hope and mobilization to reduce stigma. Factors that facilitated participation included: helpful and accessible learning materials; committed and involved stakeholders; and flexible solutions to promote continued involvement. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: This pilot study found that delivery of the Psychosocial Rehabilitation Toolkit was feasible within a health care setting in Kenya and associated with overall positive outcomes among patients with serious mental illness. Further research on its effectiveness on a larger scale and using culturally validated measures is needed. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.024 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".